TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

conrad141 Archive

View 1 post and 150 comments by conrad141 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Lmao dude I don’t even agree with her I’m just saying it’s fucking obvious there’s no threat of violence here if you don’t intentionally take it out of context.
/r/MGTOW03/07/20 09:38 PM
1

I agree. But it sounds like what you’re saying is you agree with my comment: This is dumb. She made an analogy not a threat And you disagree with people saying shit like: In a perfect world someone would have called the cops on her for basically making online threats, even terrorism threats. . This fucker needs to be locked up. Im not even joking. . She should be in jail, . She deserves a painful end. . "I"m going to stab the next person I see who says all lives matter" is a threat. If she was m…
/r/MGTOW03/07/20 01:30 AM
1

Ok so you admit that if this wasn’t someone on the left, you’d agree she didn’t actually threaten anybody and shouldn’t lose her job over it, but you just like seeing cancel culture backfire on lefties.
/r/MGTOW03/07/20 01:15 AM
0

Yeah that doesn’t mean she was talking about Trump supporters in the original clip though.
/r/MGTOW03/07/20 12:28 AM
-1

Who said anything about Trump supporters? This is about people who say “AllLivesMatter” as an anti-BLM tagline, or because they think it’s a better message than BLM. Plenty of non-white people are against BLM or against their messaging. Plenty of people who don’t like Trump also don’t like BLM. The fact that you’re taking this as some kind of white genocide thing really just destroys your credibility regarding your interpretation of what she’s saying.
/r/MGTOW02/07/20 11:46 PM
0

How is what she said “against white people”?
/r/MGTOW02/07/20 11:12 PM
1

"I"m going to stab the next person I see who says all lives matter" is a threat. It really isn’t when you don’t take it out of context like that If she was making an analogy she'd have worded it like this: "Saying all lives matter would be like if I stabbed you and I showed you my paper cut and said my cut matters too". “If she was making an analogy she would have made it this particular way but she didn’t therefore we should totally ignore the context that makes it completely obvious it was an …
/r/MGTOW02/07/20 10:15 PM
0

For fucking what lmao
/r/MGTOW02/07/20 08:12 PM
-10

This is dumb. She made an analogy not a threat
/r/MGTOW02/07/20 07:30 PM
3

What’s her @
/r/MGTOW07/05/20 01:57 AM
1

Old ass screenshot if it’s even real
/r/MGTOW07/05/20 12:04 AM
11

Is that what you think OnlyFans is?
/r/MGTOW11/04/20 11:31 PM
26

Yes it’s taxed. It’s just normal income.
/r/MGTOW11/04/20 08:37 PM
1

I mean France has their whole Smurf festival too. I’m hesitant to jump to the conclusion that this was because of feminism rather than just the government mismanagement and the sunk cost fallacy at work.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 05:52 AM
-16

Yeah that’s pretty dumb I agree. But has nothing to do with men’s rights.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 04:43 AM
-17

The soccer game needs a stadium, ticket people, vendors, people to clean up after, coaches, players, and people often travel for games. Also the other team needs to be willing to participate. Also the league needs to give the ok and they pay for their players health insurance and travel. Lots of reasons a soccer game would be more likely to get shut down.
/r/MensRights01/04/20 03:53 AM
2

That's the fetish. When it's used that way it's not usually disparaging in the first place. And that's clearly not how the word is being used in this case anyway.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 07:07 PM
2

Except 1. it's used that way all the time, and 2. having a disparaging term for men who chose to marry women with children is just as dumb and just as against the values of this community.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:36 PM
5

It's not that. It's the fact that having a disparaging name for men who get cheated on is dumb and goes against the whole idea of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 11:55 AM
1

Unfortunately we don't have that luxury in this country. We have to vote for who we think will be the least likely to fuck us up for the future.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 09:04 AM
2

I agree a ton of the time FGM is worse. But in principle alone, there's no difference.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 01:51 AM
0

The bowl is holding 100% of the m&ms, but it's filled >100% its capacity.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 04:00 AM
2

Yeah. This disadvantage is that most people don't have the opportunity to jump right into their niche, so the disadvantage is not being able to do the non-niche work required to become successful as easily.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:56 AM
2

Ok, maybe "myths" is harsh. "Exaggeration" or "generalization" might have been more appropriate. I know that the "zombie" side effect of stimulants exists. I get it to occasionally, but it's rare and it's usually when I'm coming down off them. Most people who take ADHD medication don't experience this anywhere close to every time they dose. For most people, these kinds of side effects show up occasionally when they are excessively tired, stressed, or when they are coming down from a dose. A smal…
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:55 PM
-1

Mouth fingering isn't really a hugely common sex act. Just saying. We use our mouths for lots of things. Just because it's the mouth certainly doesn't make it sexual assault. We use saliva for those kinda of sexual acts as well, I wouldn't call spitting in someone's face "sexual" assault. And sure, he was venerable, but that doesn't mean she was she was "taking advantage of him". It certainly qualifies as assault, it's just the "sexual" part I have a problem with.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 09:39 AM
-4

I just don't see how it's any different than giving someone a wet willy or spitting in their face. Assault? Definitely. Sexual assault? Ehh...
/r/MensRights17/12/13 09:05 AM
2

It's not like that for everyone. Please don't spread myths like that. My before meds experience was actually quite like what you say meds are like for you.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:39 AM
2

I still wouldn't call that a sexual manner. Are wet willies sexual assault now too? And I don't really see how she took advantage of him either. I'm just going to stick with assault.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:14 AM
2

Would they really? I'm not so sure, but if so that shouldn't be the case. For either gender.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:04 AM
4

Ok fine, let's keep it for acts that involve sex organs or are sexually motivated.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:42 AM
-10

In a sexual manner? I'm sorry help me you with that one. Did she touch his genitals? Did she touch him with her genitals? Did she assault him because she was sexually motivated?
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:31 AM
-1

Yes. I agree that it's assault. Let's stop there.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:20 AM
1

Come on.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:09 AM
1

Bet not.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 10:08 PM
1

Not my job to find evidence backing up your point.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:42 PM
1

there's more evidence that male circumcision has a negative impact on female sexuality than all forms of FGM. I'd be very interested in seeing that.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:37 PM
1

Or unless you're trying to point out the fact that these parents are quite literally making their sons' penises smaller and less functional. That's a pretty shitty way to do it. Before and after photos would be much more informative than misleading numbers. So when an Egyptian doctor or professional circumciser cuts off a girls' clitoris it is not child abuse? In other words, if you institutionalise the mutilation then it is no longer harmful? Definitely depends on what they're doing. Where coul…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:17 PM
1

The thing is, saying 15cm2 is just misleading as a number. I picture of a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis would provide much more information. The number doesn't accurately show people how much smaller it is or how much less functional it is.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:06 PM
0

I can't actually believe that you compared it to the removal of wisdom teeth. What an utter joke. Wow, strong defense there buddy. This would be like arguing that we should remove the appendix at birth because someone might get appendicitis. I'm sure when there is a quick, easy, safe, inexpensive way to remove appendixes from infants we will. This is the point where every circumcised man (which you clearly are), And everyone who's pro-life was aborted as a fetus, right? The potential harms VASTL…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 06:54 AM
0

Which one is it? I'm not very comfortable with the practice, but I am ok with parents having the choice. As for the rest of that, it's (1.) not true, and (2.) a pretty stupid point. If I was circumcised, would that somehow invalidate my opinion on circumcision? That works both ways buddy. By your logic, a person who was raped is too biased to have an opinion on rape. A person who was assaulted is too biased to have an opinion on assault. A person who is uncircumcised is must be too biased to hav…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 06:40 AM
-1

Yeah but the mammary gland removal would be largely outweighed by other drawbacks, such as not being able to breast feed, which in a way affects a woman's ability to have children. Circumcision doesn't interfere in someone's life nearly that much. You find that overall, circumcised men and uncircumcised men live incredibly similar lives and face very few related problems on either side. As for benefits, Easier to clean anyone who is too lazy to clean their foreskin well is not cleaning the rest …
/r/MensRights19/07/13 06:32 AM
-1

Don't you get it? You're pro choice for who exactly? This is the whole point. It is the BOY'S BODY. He has bodily autonomy on his side. Should he grow up to the age of reason and then decide as an adult that he wants to get circumcised, then that is his choice and he is free to do so. . You seem to think that the child has no rights at all, and it is the parent's choice? In most cases wisdom teeth removal or dental braces are not medically necessary, but it's the parents informed choice of what …
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:58 PM
0

Holy shit. Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Did you miss the part where I said "I'm not fine with it, but I think that some forms of female genital alteration are fine enough when practiced safely that it should be the parents' choice." and "Also. I don't approve of circumcision, just like a lot of people don't approve of abortion, I'm just pro-choice."?
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:33 PM
0

The figure is not presented deceitfully (i.e. as if the child has all 15 square inches at birth). That's not even what I'm implying. I'm just saying it's not really relevant. The figure itself doesn't really give any objective information that would make help someone make the informed decision to circumcise their child or not. It's purely a shock factor.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 12:50 AM
-6

Oh, OK, sorry 'bout that. So mutilating the genitals of babies is OK because their penises are not full size? What other bits of a baby's body is it OK to mutilate because they are not fully grown yet? Strawman better. I'm just saying the area of skin relative to an adult penis isn't really relevant information unless all you're trying to do is shame parents into not circumcising their kids, which is the wrong approach. Lick or suck the foreskin of a baby boy: you are a sex-abuser. Cut off the f…
/r/MensRights17/07/13 09:21 PM
-2

No it's not—fuck off. No more than Indonesian circumcision of girls is fine because it's done in clinics by medical professionals. I just read quite a bit about Indonesian circumcision if girls and I think it's much better than the female genital mutilation that goes on in many other parts of the world. My main concern is that it's driven by misconceptions and misinformation about it making the girls less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock or something. I think there's a lot of misinformation…
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:48 PM
-6

approx 15 sq inches in an adult male I'm talking about babies here, so keep it relevant. You are a child sex-abuser of the worst kind. This is my least favorite kind of comment. It's funny because I usually see it on the SRS side of things. A guy says he finds a 17 year old attractive and they call him a pedophile or a rapist. Subjective name calling is not the way to go about making your point man.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:27 PM
-10

European/American circumcision is fine. I agree that there are some issues with the number of parents who do it to their kids because they are misinformed, but it's not nearly as horrible as people on this subreddit will try to make it seem. This weird South African form of circumcision actually is terrible because of how, where, and by whom it is preformed. There's a reason so many people die from it every year.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 05:56 PM
1

Does it though? Have you read the text of the bill? Because I think most people in this thread have no idea.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 04:46 AM
1

If a woman rapes a man, his penis is coming in contact with her vagina, and it's nonconsensual, so that applies.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 04:45 AM
1

What? It never said it had to be the victim's vagina.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 03:34 AM
1

A woman raping a man my forcing her vagina onto his penis is definitely nonconcentual contact with a vagina.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 01:53 AM
1

No, but men have penises and mouths that someone else's vagina could come in contact with.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 01:18 AM
0

The so-called “rape is rape” bill would classify vaginal, anal and oral contact as rape. . Vaginal sex isn't counted. Wut
/r/MensRights07/07/13 12:45 AM
6

But that is a sick tattoo. Also, the main reason that pops into my head is "because it's not socially acceptable" which does not apply to circumcision.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:36 PM
7

It was an improvement, but I was pretty please with the original post. Small steps.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:08 PM
11

Is all violence against women gender motivated?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 05:28 PM
1

Though I'd argue that, in your hypothetical smoking case, it would be anti-woman. The fact that certain harmful substances are prohibited and others aren't isn't just arbitrary but often comes down to ideas about the users of that substance. Like what Harry Anslinger said about black people and Mexican people and what Nixon said about hippies/Jews/blacks/gays/whoever else. If women were all the smokers and there was a smoking ban, it likely would be motivated by sexism same way criminalizing mar…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 08:06 AM
-1

If we criminalizes dresses, and society pushes girls to wear dresses, then it's anti-society, not anti-girl. Do you understand that? Imagine you live in a society in which all women smoke, but almost no men do. Therefore society pushes women to smoke, but not men. The government discovers that smoking is bad for your health and makes it illegal. Is it sexist? No. It's anti-smoking, not anti-women-smoking or anti-women. As long as the thing that is being criminalized isn't innately a part of one …
/r/MensRights20/02/13 07:17 AM
-1

I guess what I'm saying is that if society pushes boys to be drawn to weaponry, criminalizing it is a way to combat this rather than to criminalize being a boy. Like, criminalizing having a penis is unfairly targeting males, but criminalizing wearing boxer briefs is just going to eventually make everyone not wear boxer briefs, regardless of gender. Whether or not criminalizing boxer briefs/drawing weapons is okay is another question, but that one doesn't have anything to do with gender.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:07 AM
5

I think that's just a social thing. Not an innately male trait or something.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:35 AM
1

same body parts, not exactly same basic procedure, sorta, but usually people who speak out against FGM are really just against the ones that are done by a child's mother with a piece of glass or something, if it weren't for that, It wouldn't be nearly as controversial. done for the same BS reasons Not at all, really.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 12:39 AM
1

Do you know which forms of FGM Oprah has specifically endorsed? I don't, but I feel like those aren't the same.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 12:18 AM
-2

Why?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:44 PM
-2

If they actually aren't being used, as in they are already off the kid's body, what the fuck is wrong with that?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:43 PM
-1

Oprah likes to take part if the dick of a little boy that was already cut off and rub that shit on her face. FTFY
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:58 PM
-1

You realize that when a burn victim comes into the hospital, the doctors don't just go over to the nearest baby boy and cut off the foreskin. The number of burn victims is in no way related to the number of circumcisions that occur.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:56 PM
-1

It's only hypocritical if you think that FGM in the forms that she has spoken out against has a higher cost/benefit ratio to circumcision, which is true.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:54 PM
-1

I don't really think she is promoting circumcision. I highly doubt that the publicity a skin cream will have any effect on the rate of circumcision at all.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:48 PM
1

Yeah, and I really think that they don't say that because they are women or because they have been raped.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 01:57 AM
1

I really don't think the problem is that they're female or that they've been raped.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 10:08 PM
23

Identifying the mother would identify the girl, and they don't want to identify the girl, so the don't identify the mother.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 10:05 PM
0

To clarify, I think that this comment could be considered funny (in a satirical "your mom" joke kind of way) if the dad actually demonstrated some stereotypically "gay" behavior, but honestly, he does nothing of the sort.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 05:43 AM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 12:00 AM
1

I'm sorry I'm afraid I don't understand your point clearly.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 04:32 PM
1

Freedom of expression is ok in my book. If there were actual people buying and wearing them I would be a little disturbed, though.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 06:46 AM
8

Nothing. But there's nothing wrong with not getting one either, and men shouldn't be criticized for their decision. Just imagine the shit someone would get if they said a woman was being 'selfish' for not getting a tubal or having an abortion.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 06:32 AM
2

Having a penis doesn't CAUSE you to be more likely to do so, it's just an indicator that you are a person who IS more statistically likely. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THING?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 09:52 PM
2

Easy tiger. No need to get all downvote-y. What I'm saying is that gender is unfair to judge based on. Having a penis doesn't cause you to be more likely to be in an expensive accident. It just makes it easier for insurance companies to group you. Just like how there's probably correlation between what shoes you wear and the likely hood of you getting breast cancer, but choosing wearing certain shoes doesn't make make you more or less likely to get breast cancer.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:45 PM
1

I'm not certain I agree with that, but I agree with it more than saying I do with the idea that it is a good idea. I'm not downvoting you btw.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:02 PM
1

Yeah. I'm saying we should make that easier for them.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:36 PM
1

The number of people living with HIV is a bad one to consider because there's a huge number of factors that cause some people to develop aids and others not and there's a huge number of factors that cause some people to be able to live with aids for a long time and others to die very quickly. We're far from understanding what all of those factors are, and were far from having enough knowledge to assume that it affects men and women equally, because it is a health issue. Also, to me this person i…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:34 PM
1

No. Being born with a penis makes you more likely to be in an expensive accident assuming you choose to behave the way that other people who have penises choose to behave. It's a behavioral factor that's just more common in the demographic of people who have penises, not a product of having a penis.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:24 PM
1

I'm saying there are better factors to consider, not that they are currently possible practical for companies to consider.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:21 PM
1

I should rephrase. I meant to say "visual" or "cosmetic" preference.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:19 PM
-1

Jews face the punishment of kareth: their child not being accepted into heaven, not being considered one if gods people by god, and not being a part of the 'world to come'. Muslims face no religious punishments at all, it's completely cultural influence.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:12 PM
1

Nope. Usually the choice is not a cosmetic one. Usually the parent is informed that it is easier to clean, can prevent some issues, and believe that almost all boys have it done and want their son to be 'normal' and fit in. It very rarely have anything to do with cosmetics.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:07 PM
2

Religious freedom?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 09:23 AM
6

It's far from being about women's preference. Largely the choice is based on misinformation.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 09:22 AM
1

That's an unlucky typo to make, my friend.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 09:07 AM
1

Did you mean "can't"?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:46 AM
7

They are worried because it's rising and it's higher that expected.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:39 AM
3

Not victims. New cases.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:38 AM
2

Except for the fact that reason insurance companies do go by those factors is because it makes them the most money.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:31 AM
2

There's nothing about being born with a penis that makes you more or less likely to be in an expensive accident. There are definitely some things about being born with a penis that might make you use more or less health resources. IMO, the factors considered in determining insurance rates should be based on a persons choices, not things they were born with, but even I have to admit it makes a lot more sense to base health insurance on what you were born with than it does car insurance.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:20 AM
1

How about we go by people's choices rather than things they were born with? I'm certain there's much better correlation with expensive accidents to things like monthly alcohol consumption, cellphone usage, number and ages of children, type of car you drive, etc.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:56 AM
0

I think that gender is a pretty bad factor to determine insurance rates on in general, but it makes a lot more sense for health care than it does for car insurance.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:45 AM
3

Because insurance companies have no way of knowing before hand who is who. They need to use statistics to guess risk and if they are not allowed they become inefficient and risky. I'm sure that there are better stats that give a clearer idea of if you are likely to cause a high costing accident than gender.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:43 AM
-3

Men have to flee their homes (if they are drafted in to service and forced to leave their homes). Go look up the definition of "flee" for me, buddy.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:35 AM
7

Oh god. It's not even comparable to balls for men.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 11:50 PM
1

My bad. He isn't any more androgynous than anyone his age an wasn't when he was first popular either.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 12:52 AM
1

That's just because his voice hadn't changed for his first 2 hits, that was just a stupid joke. He's not any more feminine than anyone else his age and he's wasn't at that age either.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:33 PM
1

Yeah. I really don't think that's the case at all.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:24 PM
1

How so?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:22 PM
3

Let the troll starve guys. Move along.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:40 AM
2

What's feminine about those two?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:37 AM
2

Yeah, I don't really think that's the case. MTF trans folk are just about as rejected by society as FTM. The picture is just an example of a transvestite, not necessarily a transgendered person. It's a pretty bad picture to go with the text, too, because its not saying that female transvestites are super accepted by society and male ones aren't. It's literally just saying that women's dress can include most parts of men's dress, but not the other way around.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:36 AM
1

You wrote that above. You said it is harm for parents to hurts their kids for ideological reasons. So which is it? Wow, you're trying really hard for "probably" to mean "yes". It doesn't. So are "uncut" and "uncircumcised" but that doesn't mean they do not mean what they mean. Those two words are significantly less loaded that "mutilate", but regardless, It doesn't mean they don't mean what they mean, they mean exactly what they mean, so does "mutilate". That's the problem. This is the third tim…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:33 PM
1

I just quoted you saying that parents hurting children from ideological/personal reasons does constitute harm. Nope, I don't agree with that statement. I would like to see evidence for this claim. The usage of the word "mutilate" has remained consistent for a very long time. Even its etymological origins in Latin hold pretty much the same meaning. It's basically a perfect synonym for the word maim. You really need to learn the difference between the words "definition" and "connotation". If you c…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 03:22 AM
1

So which is one is it? Are parents that torture their kids for stupid reasons harming them or not? Parents who* torture their kids for stupid reasons are harming them. I wouldn't consider circumcision torture. If usage defines function then the word mutilation, used to describe any violent or non-consensual amputation or visible disfiguration is far from useless. If it were, it wouldn't be so widely used. Exactly, our negative connotations have caused it to have a new meaning over time, and beca…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 01:54 AM
2

How is that different then, from parents hurting their child by cutting off parts of their genitals without anesthesia for some nebulous mythological reason? Is that harm? If they are doing it to inflict pain on the child, it is harm. Circumcision isn't preformed to inflict pain on a child. and the word is useless. YES! THANK YOU. "Mutilation" and "Mutilated" are words loaded with negative connotations to the extent that they have lost their actual meaning are useless in any form of rational dis…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:24 AM
1

Is it harm? Probably What is intent of mutilation? Intent of mutilating. Do you see where I'm going with this? No, you're not going any where with this.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:32 AM
1

No.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:28 AM
1

believe that baby must be hurt, So they are doing it specifically to hurt the baby, and for no other reason whatsoever? If the perpetrator's intent is not to harm the victim, is it still mutilation? I would say that mutilation comes with intent of mutilation, not necessarily harm. So the extent of the amputation is not relevant to the discussion, right? No, because there are extents at which it does violate the child's rights. Now explain to me in great detail the difference between amputations …
/r/MensRights01/12/12 06:29 PM
1

If it isn't necessary, but would cause issues for the child later on that would have a substantial impact, or cause unnecessary, or lasting effects to the child that could impact his formation or development significantly.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 06:25 PM
0

There are many vaccines that protect children against diseases they would never have even a slight risk of contracting any time near to the time of vaccination at all. Also, I'm not pro-circumcision, I'm pro-choice.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 05:53 AM
1

You presume that it's necessary or advisable. No I don't. I think quite the opposite. Freedom of religion should include modifying your own body, but not your child's. Should Hindus not be allowed to pierce their sons' ears?
/r/MensRights01/12/12 01:10 AM
2

If nothing in the post is false that means that it must be in some way right, which means it is not, in fact, debatable—or rather it could be debated but it is not an argument you're likely to win. Which means that the foreskin is functional; it has sexual, mechanical and structural functions. I'm glad we agree on that. Let this particular line of argument be considered closed. YES. IT HAS FUNCTION. But the function is far from vital today. Should parents be allowed to amputate all non-vital bod…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:26 PM
2

I'm not a defender of the practice. I'm a defender of the legality of the practice. I think the world would be better if nobody circumcised their children, but I think it's outside of the governments power, and should be. Also, you're correct that those are reasons parents often choose to circumcise. I think to stop circumcision, we need to eliminate the ignorance that those type of people have, and spread awareness about how stupid and pointless circumcision is, but I don't think it should be m…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:10 PM
2

If I run an electric current through a baby as to cause it pain, am I harming the baby? That depends on why, how, to what extent, to what degree, and in what context you are running an electric current through them. So in order for an injury to qualify as mutilation, it must be both deliberate and have the intent to harm? I'll help you out on this one. mutilate [ˈmjuːtɪˌleɪt] vb (tr) 1. to deprive of a limb, essential part, etc.; maim; dismember to destroy or injure severely to alter so as to ma…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:55 PM
1

People who were born into it and believe it is the path to heaven and happiness.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:30 PM
1

Only because most people who get through puberty with their foreskin still attached will punch you in the face if you suggest cutting it off. Or maybe because after that age the experience might actually be traumatic and the child might remember it later in life, which is something that people try to avoid with medical procedures. Also, it's a religious rite that it occurs near birth.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:16 PM
-1

Does causing pain constitute harm? No. Of a person, period. If you hold someone and cut off their earlobes against their will, is this mutilation? Yes. It would be a deliberate injury with intent of damage and harm. Is a paedophile that believes himself to be making love to a two year old child, is this harm? Sorry, I'll be more clear. As if pain is a side effect of another action that doesn't infringe upon those rights, it isn't harm. Are all forms of FGM worse than the removal of the foreskin …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:30 AM
0

How does this differ from male circumcision? Male circumcision doesn't infringe upon a child's rights. Should laws be revised to reflect this? I.e legalise forms of FGM that only involve the removal of the clitoral hood or the labia? If there was any good reason too, and it was shown that it didn't have an effect that violates the child's rights, then sure. What proper equipment does traditional Jewish circumcision require that would not be available? I don't know, proper sterilization and antis…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:23 AM
2

Religious justifications are as valid as the next, they're all based on myth and irrationality after all. Parents thinks it is religiously important enough to do it which is all that's relevant. No. Some religions allow it, but anything that suggests it is out of the religions context. Also, most form of FGC practiced in those cultures are forms that would violate the child's rights in out country. FGM is as varied a practice as MGM. Yes, and I'm comparing all of the most commonly practiced form…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:19 AM
0

How about you actually refute the points addressed in the post instead of picking which ones you can minimise best? That's a pretty poor defense there. I don't think that anything technical in that post is false, I simply say that it's not vital. You're asking me to refute fact when what I'm asserting is another fact entirely. Circumcision also has a negative impact on sexual performance as well as sensation, by the way. That's debatable. the foreskin is not vestigial nor is it lacking in purpos…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:12 AM
1

The rights of the parents, according to you. The parents' right to infringe on the right of their child is being infringed on, but all that means is that the child's rights are being protected. It's no longer the parents' right once it infringes upon the child's. Even for the types of FGM that are much less invasive than the amputation of the foreskin and frenulum? Not necessarily, but for the forms most commonly practiced, yes. That would still the case after it is banned. Not if they didn't ha…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:04 AM
1

Do babies feel pain? Yes, does pain felt in early infancy have an effect on the child's psychological well-being? No. Does this pain last, or ever come back? No. Will a child ever remember this pain? No. Is cutting off a person's earlobe mutilation? Well, mutilation of what? Of the child? No. Of the ear? It's a stretch. Do hurting people that will not remember it constitute harm? Not unless the intent is to actually hurt someone. Does the poke from the blood sample they took from you when you we…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:00 AM
-1

Now I think I'm the one repeating myself... for truly, foreskin and wisdom teeth have about the same vital necessity today. It only affects the smoothness of the skin underneath and the masturbation, wow, those things sound really vital to being a human these days.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:48 AM
0

This already occurs with female circumcision in developed countries. It is still illegal, as it should be. No religion requires female circumcision to receive its benefits. Brit milah is required by Judaism be one of God's people. So your asking parents essentially to condemn their child to hell. Further, female genital cutting poses many more health risks than circumcision, and has a greater impact on a woman's life than circumcision would a male in most cases. Usually it removes the entire cli…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:42 AM
-2

I thought it was a fine example myself, for truly, foreskin and wisdom teeth have about the same vital necessity today.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:26 AM
1

Should female circumcision be legalized and performed in hospitals? No, because nobody's rights are being infringed upon by it being illegal, or if you want to argue that they are, it is significantly less so than the rights of the females it might be preformed, seeing that there are lasting health issues that can have a much greater impact on their lives than the absence of foreskin has on a man's. Most Jewish circumcisions would be performed under the exact same circumstances. A bunch of evil …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:18 AM
2

I didn't mean that. In my state, a child is defined at 14 and under. It varies, but regardless, anything an under-18er does have the right to consent to (unless I'm missing something) can also be legally controlled by their parents.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:14 AM
-3

monstrous amounts of pain debatable mutilating their bodies Why don't you look up what that word means, because that's quite an exaggeration. permanently degrading the function of their genitals. debatable If that doesn't qualify as harm I can't think of anything that would. Hmmm. I sure can! How about continuous, extreme physical, verbal, or emotional abuse that will stick with a child for the rest of his life, rather than something he won't even remember and will have little effect on his life…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:03 AM
0

Should it be illegal for parents to get their kids orthodontic braces, too, or have their wisdom teeth removed?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:25 AM
-2

Oh look! It's a magical would where your wish came true: People of religions that require circumcision are now preforming them illegally in less-than-sanitary environments and with less advanced medical techniques by more poorly educated people. These children are having more circumcision related problems, more infection, more death. People start debating other medical procedures that occur before a person is 18, but are not necessary for the child's overall health or safety. Along with circumci…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:22 AM
-1

Children can't legally consent to anything. Do you think it should be illegal to instal a cochlear implant, or administer immunotherapy alergy shots, or vaccines? What if I wanted my wisdom teeth? It should be illegal to have them removed until I was 18? Impacted molars didn't pose any threat to my overall health at all, should my parents have not been allowed to have them removed?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:44 AM
2

I imagine very few parents who choose to circumcise their sons do it for cosmetic reasons at all. For most it is either religious or health reasons(on which they are often misinformed).
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:36 AM
1

Don't kid yourself; the brain stops developing when you die or damage it severely, no sooner.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:33 AM
1

That is a whole other issue. It's time will come.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:32 AM
-5

So Jews will just circumcise their sons illegally in more unsafe ways, and put even more children at risk than are now? Sounds great!
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:28 AM
-6

I think this is ignorant. We've pretty much decided that parents are allowed to choose what they believe is best for their child. This includes religion, education, and medical issues. The only time the law steps in is when a parents choice puts a child in significant risk of being harmed. For the law to tell Jewish parents that their sons cannot be circumcised is telling them that their son must commit one of the 36 offenses punishable by kareth, or being cut off from the people of God and bein…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:26 AM
0

Yeah, I really agree. I'm sorry you were downvoted, but I'm more sorry that this community would refuse to consider the idea that there might be more to this kind of thing that a comic can explain.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:57 PM
1

Most school districts have a very specific grievance policy that states exactly what you're supposed to do in these kinds of situations. At my school you must have an informal meeting with the active principal within 5 days of the incident. If you are not satisfied with the outcome you file a formal written report that must be responded to within 30 days by action or a formal meeting. If you are still not satisfied, you can file the same report with the superintendent. Look in a student planner,…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 03:31 AM
-3

I'm sorry people are downvoting you. This is why people think we hate women, guys...
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:38 PM
3

http://www.reddit.com/user/atiwywr Redditor for 7 days two comments.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:59 PM
12

In an office? Really? Lets just keep sex away from there.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 09:00 PM
1

Everyone who has talked to me so far has spoken in Greek to me right off the bat, including a flight attendant on a plane to Rome who I'm sure could spot Americans a mile away based on the fact that she spoke English to my white dad seated next to me. I'm not really sure how to pull off seeming more American, or how to make that work to my advantage.
/r/seduction12/06/12 07:09 AM
1

This isn't a problem, you just need to play off it. I am TERRIBLE at remembering girls' names and I just play it as I "I meet girls all the time so I have trouble sorting them out." Sometimes they act offended, but they are just playing. It makes them more interested in you.
/r/seduction08/01/12 04:12 AM
1

You don't have to use the correct plural either!
/r/seduction02/12/11 11:03 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter